lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220409202035.plaiekzuihov4kvq@box.shutemov.name>
Date:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 23:20:35 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 4/8] x86/boot/compressed: Handle unaccepted memory

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 10:57:17AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/5/22 16:43, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Firmware is responsible for accepting memory where compressed kernel
> > image and initrd land. But kernel has to accept memory for decompression
> > buffer: accept memory just before decompression starts.
> 
> I think I'd appreciate a sentence or two more about what's going on.
> How about something like this?
> 
> The firmware starts the kernel by booting into the "compressed" kernel
> stub.  That stub's job is to decompress the full kernel image and then
> jump to it.
> 
> The firmware will pre-accept the memory used to run the stub.  But, the
> stub is responsible for accepting the memory into which it decompresses
> the main kernel.  Accept memory just before decompression starts.
> 
> The stub is also responsible for choosing a physical address in which to
> place the decompressed kernel image.  The KASLR mechanism will randomize
> this physical address.  Since the unaccepted memory region is relatively
> small, KASLR would be quite ineffective if it only used the pre-accepted
> area (EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY).  Ensure that KASLR randomizes among the
> entire physical address space by also including EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY.

Sure, looks good.

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/bitmap.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/bitmap.c
> > index bf58b259380a..ba2de61c0823 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/bitmap.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/bitmap.c
> > @@ -2,6 +2,48 @@
> >  /* Taken from lib/string.c */
> >  
> >  #include <linux/bitmap.h>
> > +#include <linux/math.h>
> > +#include <linux/minmax.h>
> > +
> > +unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr1,
> > +		const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long nbits,
> > +		unsigned long start, unsigned long invert, unsigned long le)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long tmp, mask;
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(start >= nbits))
> > +		return nbits;
> > +
> > +	tmp = addr1[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> > +	if (addr2)
> > +		tmp &= addr2[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> > +	tmp ^= invert;
> > +
> > +	/* Handle 1st word. */
> > +	mask = BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start);
> > +	if (le)
> > +		mask = swab(mask);
> > +
> > +	tmp &= mask;
> > +
> > +	start = round_down(start, BITS_PER_LONG);
> > +
> > +	while (!tmp) {
> > +		start += BITS_PER_LONG;
> > +		if (start >= nbits)
> > +			return nbits;
> > +
> > +		tmp = addr1[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> > +		if (addr2)
> > +			tmp &= addr2[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> > +		tmp ^= invert;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (le)
> > +		tmp = swab(tmp);
> > +
> > +	return min(start + __ffs(tmp), nbits);
> > +}
> >  
> >  void __bitmap_set(unsigned long *map, unsigned int start, int len)
> >  {
> > @@ -22,3 +64,23 @@ void __bitmap_set(unsigned long *map, unsigned int start, int len)
> >  		*p |= mask_to_set;
> >  	}
> >  }
> > +
> > +void __bitmap_clear(unsigned long *map, unsigned int start, int len)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long *p = map + BIT_WORD(start);
> > +	const unsigned int size = start + len;
> > +	int bits_to_clear = BITS_PER_LONG - (start % BITS_PER_LONG);
> > +	unsigned long mask_to_clear = BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start);
> > +
> > +	while (len - bits_to_clear >= 0) {
> > +		*p &= ~mask_to_clear;
> > +		len -= bits_to_clear;
> > +		bits_to_clear = BITS_PER_LONG;
> > +		mask_to_clear = ~0UL;
> > +		p++;
> > +	}
> > +	if (len) {
> > +		mask_to_clear &= BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(size);
> > +		*p &= ~mask_to_clear;
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> It's a real shame that we have to duplicate this code.  Is there
> anything crazy we could do here like
> 
> #include "../../../lib/find_bit.c"
> 
> ?

Well, it would require fracturing source files on the kernel side.

__bitmap_set() and __bitmap_clear() are now in lib/bitmap.c.

_find_next_bit() is in lib/find_bit.c.

Both lib/bitmap.c and lib/find_bit.c have a lot of stuff that are not used
here. I guess we would need to split them into few pieces to make it in
sane way. Do you want me to go this path?

> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > index 411b268bc0a2..59db90626042 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > @@ -725,10 +725,20 @@ process_efi_entries(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
> >  		 * but in practice there's firmware where using that memory leads
> >  		 * to crashes.
> >  		 *
> > -		 * Only EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY is guaranteed to be free.
> > +		 * Only EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY and EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY (if
> > +		 * supported) are guaranteed to be free.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (md->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY)
> > +
> > +		switch (md->type) {
> > +		case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
> > +			break;
> > +		case EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY:
> > +			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY))
> > +				break;
> >  			continue;
> > +		default:
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> >  
> >  		if (efi_soft_reserve_enabled() &&
> >  		    (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_SP))
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c
> > index fa8969fad011..c1d9d71a6615 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c
> > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >  #include "../string.h"
> >  #include "../voffset.h"
> >  #include <asm/bootparam_utils.h>
> > +#include <asm/unaccepted_memory.h>
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * WARNING!!
> > @@ -43,6 +44,9 @@
> >  void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n);
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#undef __pa
> > +#define __pa(x)	((unsigned long)(x))
> 
> Those #undef's always worry me.  Why is this one needed?

arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c:47:9: warning: '__pa' macro redefined [-Wmacro-redefined]
#define __pa(x) ((unsigned long)(x))
        ^
arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:47:9: note: previous definition is here
#define __pa(x)         __phys_addr((unsigned long)(x))

Note that sev.c does the same. At least we are consistent :)

> >  /*
> >   * This is set up by the setup-routine at boot-time
> >   */
> > @@ -451,6 +455,13 @@ asmlinkage __visible void *extract_kernel(void *rmode, memptr heap,
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  	debug_putstr("\nDecompressing Linux... ");
> > +
> > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY) &&
> > +	    boot_params->unaccepted_memory) {
> > +		debug_putstr("Accepting memory... ");
> > +		accept_memory(__pa(output), __pa(output) + needed_size);
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	__decompress(input_data, input_len, NULL, NULL, output, output_len,
> >  			NULL, error);
> >  	parse_elf(output);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/unaccepted_memory.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/unaccepted_memory.c
> > index d363acf59c08..3ebab63789bb 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/unaccepted_memory.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/unaccepted_memory.c
> > @@ -51,3 +51,17 @@ void mark_unaccepted(struct boot_params *params, u64 start, u64 end)
> >  	bitmap_set((unsigned long *)params->unaccepted_memory,
> >  		   start / PMD_SIZE, (end - start) / PMD_SIZE);
> >  }
> > +
> > +void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long *unaccepted_memory;
> > +	unsigned int rs, re;
> > +
> > +	unaccepted_memory = (unsigned long *)boot_params->unaccepted_memory;
> > +	rs = start / PMD_SIZE;
> 
> OK, so start is a physical address, PMD_SIZE is 2^21, and 'rs' is an
> unsigned int.  That means 'rs' can, at most, represent a physical
> address at 2^(21+32), or 2^53.  That's cutting it a *bit* close, don't
> you think?
> 
> Could we please just give 'rs' and 're' real names and make them
> 'unsigned long's, please?  It will surely save at least one other person
> from doing math.  The find_next_bit() functions seem to take ulongs anyway.

Okay. 'range_start' and 'range_end' are good enough names?

> 
> > +	for_each_set_bitrange_from(rs, re, unaccepted_memory,
> > +				   DIV_ROUND_UP(end, PMD_SIZE)) {
> > +		__accept_memory(rs * PMD_SIZE, re * PMD_SIZE);
> > +		bitmap_clear(unaccepted_memory, rs, re - rs);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> Could we please introduce some intermediate variable?  For instance:
> 
> 	unsigned long bitmap_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(end, PMD_SIZE);
> 
> That will make this all a lot easier to read.

Okay.

> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/unaccepted_memory.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/unaccepted_memory.h
> > index cbc24040b853..f1f835d3cd78 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/unaccepted_memory.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/unaccepted_memory.h
> > @@ -9,4 +9,6 @@ struct boot_params;
> >  
> >  void mark_unaccepted(struct boot_params *params, u64 start, u64 num);
> >  
> > +void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end);
> > +
> >  #endif
> 

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ